Guns can be removed from those deemed dangerous under law signed by Rauner; he also extends 'cooling off' period to assault-style weapons

Jose M. Osorio/Chicago Tribune

Gov. Bruce Rauner signs House Bill 2354, a measure allowing police to take away guns from those judged in court to pose a threat, on July 16, 2018, at the Thompson Center in Chicago.

Gov. Bruce Rauner signs House Bill 2354, a measure allowing police to take away guns from those judged in court to pose a threat, on July 16, 2018, at the Thompson Center in Chicago. (Jose M. Osorio/Chicago Tribune)

Gov. Bruce Rauner signed into law Monday a measure allowing police to take away guns from those judged in court to pose a threat.

He also extended the 72-hour gun-purchase waiting period to all firearms but said he would veto a measure adding more oversight to gun stores.

Rauner said at a news conference that he was “proud” to sign the firearms order of protection measure, noting that it was supported by law enforcement and calling it “a very important step forward to increase safety for the people of our state.”

The so-called “red flag” bill will allow family members or police to seek an order of protection to confiscate guns from those deemed “an immediate and present danger” to themselves or others.

Former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot and serously injured during a meeting with constituents in 2011 and is now a gun-control advocate, applauded the governor’s actions.

“While Congress remains silent, states like Illinois are responding to calls from Americans of all ages to do more to keep us safe,” she said in a statement released through her group Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. “Today is another step in the right direction as Illinois communities now have a path to ensure those experiencing a crisis do not have access to guns.”

The Firearms Restraining Order Act is among two proposals approved by the General Assembly this year that attempt to take tools traditionally used against domestic violence and apply them to prevent gun violence. Another measure would allow schools, houses of worship and workplaces, rather than just individuals, to petition a judge for a no-contact order against someone viewed as a threat.

Lawmakers approved the measures largely in response to recent mass shootings at a high school in Parkland, Fla., and at the Capital Gazette newspaper office in Annapolis, Md.

The red flag initiative, similar to measures passed recently in several other states, was backed by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

It will allow family members or police to ask a judge to temporarily remove firearms from someone who has displayed threatening or dangerous behavior.

“This is something we think will ultimately save lives,” Executive Director Colleen Daley said. She emphasized that the council negotiated with gun rights organizations, police and domestic violence groups to craft legislation that would be met with wide acceptance.

State Rep. Kathleen Willis, a Democrat from Addison who sponsored the measure, sees it as a way to help prevent both mass shootings and suicides. She said the bill allows families to try to head off problems based on red flags of erratic behavior, before violence occurs. After four years of working on passing the bill, Willis said she was “thrilled” that the governor would sign it.

But Giffords said the work “is not over. Governor Rauner must build on these victories by supporting additional efforts to curtail the gun violence crisis and build a bridge to a healthier future for Illinois.”

To that end, Rauner has found himself in a difficult spot when it comes to navigating various proposals on how to regulate guns in Illinois.

As calls for tighter gun control accompany high-profile mass shootings, the governor has embraced some less-controversial measures that allow him to show he’s taking action on the issue. But at the same time, the hunter and self-described “advocate for the Second Amendment” has rejected other, more sweeping proposals.

For instance, Rauner on Monday also signed legislation that would extend the 72-hour waiting period to buy a gun to all firearms. Previously, the “cooling-off period” only applied to handguns but not assault-style weapons.

But the governor said he would veto legislation to create a new inspection and oversight process for stores that sell guns in Illinois. He also vetoed an earlier version of that proposal.

“That bill will not increase public safety, it will increase red tape and restrictions and unnecessary burden on our small businesses in Illinois,” Rauner said.

The governor’s announcement created a bit of an awkward moment at a news conference marked by bipartisan praise. Afterward, Willis expressed gratitude that the governor signed the bill to allow guns to be taken away from those who pose a threat but vowed to push back on the licensing bill.

“Well, thank you, Governor,” the state representative said. “I am going to fight you on the gun dealer licensing, we will work on that.”

Both the “red flag” initiative and the bill extending no-contact privileges to institutions like churches passed by large margins but have raised some concerns among gun rights advocates, lawyers and domestic violence activists as to how the measures will work in practice.

Gun rights lobbyists said there is a risk the laws could be used maliciously to take someone’s guns unfairly or damage their reputation. And domestic violence groups expressed fear that attempting to confiscate guns from someone who’s unstable might prompt a dangerous outburst by that person.

The sponsor of the no-contact order bill, state Rep. Barbara Wheeler, a Republican from Crystal Lake, said the idea came as a reaction to shootings at Parkland and Northern Illinois University and out of her participation in the governor’s working group on public safety.

The law would allow a representative of a school, workplace or house of worship to seek a no-contact order to prohibit a person from entering the building if that person has exhibited threatening behavior.

Wheeler said she consulted a Lake County judge for suggestions on shootings that might be prevented by keeping dangerous people away from schools and other targeted sites. The measure got bipartisan support and passed unanimously in both chambers. Wheeler said the governor’s office indicated he would sign it in late July or early August.

The governor’s office has not commented on whether he will sign the measure.

Attorney Lori Levin described the no-contact order as “an interesting idea that may be necessary.” But she raised concern about whether restricting someone’s access to a place of worship could be challenged as a freedom of religion violation.

Using laws traditionally aimed at domestic violence can be problematic, warned Vickie Smith, executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Her group supports the new bill for no-contact orders, citing an example of business co-owners who she said are being stalked and harassed by a former employee. But the coalition has concerns about the new proposal for orders of protection.

Smith gave a hypothetical example of a mother who gets an order of protection to take guns away from her son because he’s doing drugs and acting irrationally. She said the concern is that when police try to confiscate his guns, he could lash out angrily, creating a potentially dangerous situation.

“I appreciate what they’re trying to do, but I don’t think an order of protection is the way to go about it,” Smith said. She suggested that other measures aimed at gun control would be more effective.

An order of protection cannot by itself prevent violence, she said, but when someone shows up at 3 a.m. threatening a victim at home, it depends on police and the justice system to enforce it. And victims must be aware of the enforcement of court orders ahead of time so they can protect themselves, she said. The bill does contain a provision asking that police give advance notice to anyone in an “intimate” relationship with the subject of the order.

On the other side of the issue, the Illinois State Rifle Association initially opposed the new order of protection bill but negotiated limits on the proposal that allowed the group to drop its opposition.

Sponsors agreed to shorten the period of gun removal from one year to six months, to provide an avenue to appeal such orders and to allow prosecutors to lodge perjury charges against anyone making false accusations. To appease gun owners’ concerns that a false accusation could haunt them, the law also provides that if the petition to take the guns is denied, the court file will be expunged, and if the order is granted, it will be sealed after three years.

The hearing and order to do so may be done ex parte, or without notice to the person who is the subject of the hearing, but the subject can petition for a hearing within two weeks. The measure serves an important goal to help to prevent suicide and has provisions to ensure due process, rifle association Executive Director Richard Pearson said, though he still worries it may be misused.

“I’m concerned that people will use this maliciously,” Pearson said. “You’ve got to be extraordinarily careful with these rights. You need a way for (those accused) to get out if they did nothing.”

Ultimately, the laws will fall on police to enforce. If a judge finds a person is a threat, the judge will issue a search warrant allowing police to seize the person’s firearms and firearm owner’s identification card.

Local police already have the right to ask the state to revoke firearm owners’ identification cards. This new proposed law would only suspend someone’s FOID card, and it would be automatically reinstated after six months unless the court finds grounds to renew the suspension.

In determining whether someone poses a danger, a judge may consider the following factors: unlawful or reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm; history of use of force or threatened force; prior felony arrests; abuse of controlled substances or alcohol; a recent threat or act of violence; a violation of a domestic violence emergency order of protection; or a pattern of violent acts or threats.

The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a danger to himself or herself or to someone else by having a firearm.

The person whose guns are taken may petition to give them to a friend with a firearm owner’s ID card. That person must swear not to give the firearms back without authorization.

The Illinois State Police declined to comment. In a report the agency issued about the proposed legislation, state police noted that if the new law causes a lot of FOID card suspensions, the agency may have to hire additional analysts for about $100,000a year each to process the paperwork.